Personal, public costs of scientific misconduct calculated

August 15, 2014
This is Dr. Ferric Fang in his microbiology lab at the University of Washington. In addition to being a laboratory medicine physician and a researcher, Fang also studies the reasons behind, and the consequences of, scientific misconduct. Credit: Brian Donohue

Much has been assumed about the private and public damage of scientific misconduct. Yet few have tried to measure the costs to perpetrators and to society.

A recent study calculated some of the career impacts, as well as federal funding wasted, when biomedical are retracted. The results appear in the Aug. 15 issue of the journal eLife.

In questioning common assumptions, the study authors determined that scientific misconduct typically, but not always, exacts a personal toll in derailing careers. On the public side, the cost to sources for retracted research was much lower than they expected.

The authors emphasized that scientific misconduct does more than ruin professional careers and waste funding. False data can jeopardize patient safety, betray trust in the scientific community, and slow research progress.

The rise in misconduct is a troubling sign of problems in the high-pressure scientific enterprise in the United States and some other countries, according to Dr. Ferric Fang, a University of Washington professor of microbiology and laboratory medicine.

Fang is senior author of the study, "Financial Costs and Personal Consequences of Research Misconduct Resulting in Retracted Publications." He explained that dishonesty, such as fabricated or falsified data, is behind most paper retractions, but added that sometimes honest retractions correct a previously undetected error.

A research group consisting of Andrew M. Stern of Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Arturo Casadevall of Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University, R. Grant Steen of MediCC Medical Communications Consultants, and Fang analyzed several open databases to answer these questions: What happens to the productivity and funding of discredited biomedical researchers? What is the price of retracted studies for the National Institutes of Health, the largest source of basic and clinical research grant funding?

With a few exceptions of scientists weathering an earlier failure, those proven guilty of misconduct experienced a sharp drop in their research productivity, according to the investigators' review of the publication histories of those named in Office of Research Integrity findings. Being listed in an Office of Research Integrity misconduct filing also correlated with a significant, sustained drop in funding.

Lately, criminal charges for making false statements to the NIH in order to obtain have been levied in at least one prominent case.

Using publicly available data for 1992 to 2012 and various analytical approaches, Fang, Steen, Casadevall and Stern estimated the direct attributable financial costs to the NIH for retracted studies. In a sample group of 43 retracted articles in which all funding was accounted for, the mean attributable cost was $425,073 per article. The researchers also estimated the total funding for all NIH grants that in any way supported research reported in papers retracted for misconduct. Their initial figure was $1.67 billion in actual dollars, which, after adjusting for inflation to 2012 dollars, came in at $2.32 billion.

Overall, the researchers found that funding for research reported in retracted articles accounted for less than 1 percent of the NIH budget during the period reviewed.

Further analysis suggested that the direct cost to the NIH is higher for retracted papers published in high-impact journals – those with articles that are the most cited in other research papers within two years of publication.

They acknowledged the difficulty in calculating the attributable costs of each retracted study, because funding sources are diverse and not uniformly reported in scientific papers or in research project databases. The researchers tried to find reasons why they may have underestimated or overestimated, and pointed to additional sources of bias.

Even with such corrections, Fang said, "Our study suggests that research misconduct does not involve a large percentage of research in the United States."

He stressed that this study looks at only a small part of the full financial loss from research misconduct. It did not include the steep expenses incurred in investigating scientific misconduct, or a drop in support for institutions or colleagues with reputations tarnished by association. Nor did it include time and money other scientists spent in unproductive work based on false data.

"The reverberations of fraud throughout the research community might even be greater than the cost of the retracted itself," the authors noted.

Fang and his co-authors singled out the greatest immeasurable cost of : preventable illness or the loss of human life due to misinformation in the medical literature.

Explore further: Misconduct, not error, accounts for most scientific paper retractions, new study finds

Related Stories

Scientific misconduct is real, but rare

February 14, 2013

(—Richard Primack, Boston University professor of biology and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Conservation, observes in the current issue of that publication that while instances of scientific misconduct ...

Facts in scientific drug literature may not be, study finds

May 30, 2012

(Medical Xpress) -- A growing concern with fraud and misconduct in published drug studies has led researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research to investigate the extent ...

Study: Men more likely than women to commit scientific fraud

January 22, 2013

Male scientists are far more likely to commit fraud than females and the fraud occurs across the career spectrum, from trainees to senior faculty. The analysis of professional misconduct was co-led by a researcher at Albert ...

Recommended for you

New paper answers causation conundrum

November 17, 2017

In a new paper published in a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, SFI Professor Jessica Flack offers a practical answer to one of the most significant, and most confused questions in evolutionary ...

Chance discovery of forgotten 1960s 'preprint' experiment

November 16, 2017

For years, scientists have complained that it can take months or even years for a scientific discovery to be published, because of the slowness of peer review. To cut through this problem, researchers in physics and mathematics ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2014
And, yet, let any "study" appear in a "journal" and "science" devotees will jump all over it and declare the secrets of the universe have finally been solved. Gullibility in action. Consider, this "study" acknowledges that many studies are fraudulent, often due to fabricated data, then the "researchers" go on to say that impact on federal funding sources "was much lower than they expected", and they are believed! Note, for example, too, another article today on Phys Org talks of tobacco plants being used to provide substances for attacking diseases such as Ebola. The "description" speaks of plants upended in a solution that "infiltrates" them with the protein they wish reproduced in number. Just having a substances in their structure doesn't make plants reproduce it. If that statement is true. But, consider, Ebola began in the mid 70's, when smoking began to trail off. How many asked if maybe substances native to tobacco will fight Ebola?
5 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2014
The article didn't say there are "many" fraudulent studies and the cost came to less than 1% of the NIH budget. One fraudulent study is one too many but you read something in the article that wasn't there.
1 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
How much one hundred years of ignorance of cold fusion findings would cost?
1 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
This would confirm why Climate "science" isn't science.
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2014
The multiple research fraud enterprises according the grants of NSF (CAREER, CHE- 0644530, DBI-1306229, OCI-1053575, CCF 0926148, DMR-0952794, NSF Graduate Fellowship) and NIH (DE013023, DE016516, DP1MH099903, R01DE011451, etc.) which were approved by both NSF OIG and NIH Research Integrity (NIH/OD/OER) at http://www.scribd...-timely, http://www.scribd...versity, http://ru.scribd....cations,, etc.
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2014
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.